USPTO Patents Application 09893803

United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.usplo.gov

APPLICATION NO.

FILING DATE

FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.

CONFIRMATION NO.

09/893,803

06/28/2001

Bharath Rangarajan

F0660

7099

7590 07/05/2005

Himanshu S. Amin
Amin & Turocy, LLP
National City Center
1900 E. 9th Street, 24th Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114

EXAMINER

ROSENBERGER, RICHARD A

ART UNIT

PAPER NUMBER

2877

DATE MAILED: 07/05/2005

Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.

PTO-90C (Rev. 10/03)

4kL

Advisory Action

Aofnrp th& Eilinrt of an 21nnop/ fir/of

DtSiVi t/ft? / #//##y ly# cffl r\JJjJ%2<xl Offer

Application No.

09/893,803

AppMcant(s)

RANGARAJAN ET AL.

Examiner

Richard A. Rosenberger

Art Unit

2877

«777e MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address

THE REPLY FILED 21 June 2005 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.

1. □ The reply was filed after a final rejection, but prior to or on the same day as filing a Notice of Appeal. To avoid abandonment of

this application, applicant must timely file one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which
places the application in condition for allowance; (2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or
(3) a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. The reply must be filed within one of the
following time periods:

a) IZ] The period for reply expires months from the mailing date of the final rejection.

b) CH The period for reply expires on: (1 ) the mailing date of this Advisory Action, or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later. In no

event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.

Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (a) or (b). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THE FIRST REPLY WAS FILED WITHIN TWO

MONTHS OF THE FINAL REJECTION. See MPEP 706.07(0-
Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1 .1 36(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1 .136(a) and the appropriate extension fee have
been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The appropriate extension fee under 37
CFR 1 .17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally set in the final Office action; or (2) as set forth in (b)
above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed, may reduce any
earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
NOTICE OF APPEAL

2. 13 The Notice of Appeal was filed on 21 June 2005 . A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of

the date of filing the Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41.37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41.37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the
appeal. Since a Notice of Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41.37(a).
AMENDMENTS

3. □ The proposed amendment(s) filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be entered because

(a) O They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);

(b) CH They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);

(c) D They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for

appeal; and/or

(d) \Z\ They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.

NOTE: . (See 37 CFR 1.1 16 and 41.33(a)).

4. □ The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).

5. □ Applicant's reply has overcome the following rejection(s): .

6. □ Newly proposed or amended claim(s) would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling

the non-allowable claim(s).

7. □ For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): a) □ will not be entered, or b) □ will be entered and an explanation of

how the new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:

Claim(s) allowed: .

Claim(s) objected to: .

Claim(s) rejected: .

Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration: .

AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE

8. □ The affidavit or other evidence filed after a final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will not be entered

because applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary
and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 1.116(e).

9. □ The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing a Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be

entered because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome all rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a
showing a good and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41.33(d)(1).

10. □ The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER

11 • EE3 The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
see attached.

12. □ Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/SB/08 or PTO-1449) Paper No(s).

13. □ Other: .

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PTOL-303 (Rev. 4-05)

Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief

Part of Paper No. 20050626

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 2

Art Unit: 2877

1 . On page 3 of the remarks 6/2 1/2005 it is asserted that "the Examiner asserts that both the
concepts and advantages of employing scatterometry to measure multi-slope semiconductor
features is well known and expected in the art" and misstates the grounds of the rejection by
suggesting that these are "well-known statements", or takings of official notice, of the sort
discussed in MPEP 2144.03. But this portion of the final rejection is not a taking of official
notice, but an explicit reliance on the accuracy of statements made by Applicants and their
representative as to what is known in the prior art, statements in both the instant specification
and in the record, in particular in the paper filed 6/8/2004. Thus these particular remarks, as they
misstate the grounds of the rejection, do not, and cannot, serve to advance prosecution.

2. As noted in the rejection 1/2/2004, the instant specification does not, and does not purport
to, teach those in the art how to make and use scatterometry to measure multi-slope
semiconductor features, nor how to etch multi-slope features. The specification merely notes that
"[s]catterometry systems are well known in the art, and therefore further discussion related
thereto is limited for the sake of brevity" [specification, page 12, lines 14-16] and "[t]he manner
in which processor 814 can be programmed to carry out the functions relating to the present
invention will be readily apparent to those having ordinary skill in the art based on the
description provided herein" [page 12, lines 18-21]. Similarly for the apparatus and techniques
for performing multi-slope etching: "[s]uch etching components are known in the art, and thus
discussion thereof is limited herein for the sake of brevity" [page 3, lines20-21], and
"[techniques for fabricating features with such angles are known in the art" [page 9, lines 2-3],
The specification offers no objective evidence that these characterizations of what is known in

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 3

Art Unit: 2877

the art is in fact correct; the specification does not point to any place where those in the art can
go to find this information. The specification presents these statements as to what is known in the
art as nothing more than unsupported allegations.

Further Applicants (or Applicants' representative) in the remarks filed 6/8/2004, also
stated that "the prior characterization of scatterometry and the process for generating multi-slope
features and devices as two distinct and separate processes as being well known in the art is
correct, and as such is noted in the specification" (remarks filed 6/8/2004, page 12, lines 2-4). As
with the statements in the specification, these are unsupported allegations; the remarks, while
alleging this material is well-known, do not point to any place where those in the art can find this
material, or provide any other objective evidence that the material is in fact well-known.

It is of course correct that patent law does not require more if the allegations are in fact
accurate. Applicants do not have to provide details of material which is genuinely well-known in
the art, and do not have to explicitly point to where to find material which is sufficiently well-
known in the art that those in the art can be expected to know or to be otherwise able to readily
find. This does not, of course, relieve applicants of the requirement under 35 USC 112, first
paragraph, to provide disclosure sufficient to enable those in the art to make and use the
invention.

As the record shows, the examiner has generally taken, and is now taking, these and
similar statements at face value, accepting as accurate the statements in the specification and
elsewhere in the record that etching multi-slope features and measuring multi-slope features are
so well known in the art that the sort of unsupported allegations found in the specification and
various remarks is sufficient for adequate disclosure. Note the office actions of 12/3/2002 and

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 4

Art Unit: 2877

5/15/2003 clearly take the characterization in the specification of the content of the prior art as
being accurate; and the office action of 9/10/2004, in withdrawing a rejection, depends on the
statements in the record, in the remarks filed 6/8/2004, that this material is in fact that well-
known.

The most recent set of remarks; those filed 6/21/2005, takes these statements which
Applicants and Applicants' representative have made on the record, and are being relied upon for
completeness of disclosure, and "requests that the Examiner cite a reference in support of his
position" [remarks filed 6/21/2005, page 3, line 30]. The "reference" being relied upon in the
rejection is, of course, Applicants', and Applicants' representative's, clear statements on the
record that this material is well-known. Thus the "request" in the remarks is the rather bizarre
request that the Examiner prove to Applicants and their representative that they themselves were
making accurate the statements on the record when they alleged that this material is so well-
known that the mere mention of it, without any objective evidence whatsoever, is sufficient
disclosure to enable those in the art to make and use the disclosed invention.

Thus this "request", besides misstating the grounds of the rejection by the incorrect
allegation that an explicit reliance upon the accuracy of statements made by Applicants and their
representative is nothing more than a taking of official notice, is also so inconsistent with
Applicants', and Applicants' representative's, statements on the record that it at least approaches
a repudiation the those statements; a "request" that the Examiner prove to Applicants and their
representative that they were making accurate statements on the record at least suggests that
Applicants and their representative is unwilling, at this time at any rate, affirm these statements;
perhaps, for example, they have become aware since the statements were made that they are not

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 5

Art Unit: 2877

correct. Thus this "request" suggests the rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph (made in
the office action mailed 1/2/2004; withdrawn on the basis of reliance on the accuracy of
statements on the record in the office action mailed 9/10/2004) was withdrawn in error. If these
statements on the record by Applicants and their representative are so unreliable that the
Examiner must prove them, then they are necessarily so unreliable that they cannot be used to
support the disclosure, and the rejection under 35 USC 112, first paragraph, previously
withdrawn on the belief that these statements were reliable, must be reinstated.

3. The remarks allege, on page 3, first full paragraph, lines 6-18, that Moslehi does not
show "the in-situ use of an optical measuring device for process control in processing tools such
as etch processes" [lines 8-9] and that "nowhere does the cited document [i.e. Moslehi] teach or
suggest in-situ regulation of an etch process" [lines 13-14]. This is not correct. The Moslehi
reference is replete with references to process control. See, for example, the abstract, last five
lines: "a process control computer ... yielding ... control signals"; column 6, lines 31-33: "the
non-invasive in-situ sensors 20 are the most suitable type for device fabrication process control
needs"; column 6, lines 39-42: "the in-situ sensors 20 are designed for real-time ... process
control". See also figure 1, which shows in situ measurements (box 20) being designed for real-
time (box 26) including process control applications such as feedback control (box 30).

Note further that the section of the Moslehi reference, column 8, lines 20-27, referred to
in the remarks (remarks, page 3, lines 10-12) is part of a discussion of figures 3a and 3b of that
reference (column 8, line 20 of the reference refers explicitly to those figures). The broader
discussion of those figures of which this is a part begins on column 7, line 61, the first sentence

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 6

Art Unit: 2877

of which is "Fig. 3 illustrates various single-wafer and their associated 'critical' in-situ process
control sensors" [emphasis added]. Note the explicit reference not only to in-situ measurements,
but to process control as well. The "Brief Description" of figures 3a and 3b, found on column 4,
lines 42-44, notes that these figures are "charts describing useful in-situ sensors for process
control in various semiconductor device fabrication processes" [emphasis added]. Again, note
the explicit disclosure of not only in-situ sensors, but of their use for process control.

Thus, far from it being the case that "nowhere does the cited reference teach or suggest in
situ regulation of an etch process" (remarks, page 3, lines 13-14), such in situ regulation of a
fabrication process is most fairly understood as part of the very intent and purpose underlying the
disclosure therein, and the reference clearly includes, and clearly intends to include, etch
processes within the fabrication processes with which such in situ measurement and regulation is
useful.

4. The remarks allege (page 3, lines 14-17) that "the reference [i.e., Moslehi] is silent with
regard to the claimed limitation of in situ regulation of an etch process ... comprising one or
more etching components operative to etch at least one aspect of a multi-sloped feature on a
wafer and an etch component controller for controlling the one or more etching components"
[emphasis in original]. This allegation seems to be correct, although irrelevant. The reference, it
is true, does not by itself explicitly teach that the etch processes mentioned include the etching of
a multi-sloped feature (although, of course, there is nothing in the reference to suggest that there
was any intention to exclude such etching). Thus it is also true that the reference cannot properly
applied by itself as a sole reference under 35 USC 102. However, the rejection is in no manner

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803 Page 7

Art Unit: 2877

based upon any allegation or belief that it does explicitly mention etching multi-sloped features
(as opposed to other types of features), and it is not being applied as if it did under 35 USC 102.
So this observation in the remarks, however true it may be, is not relevant to the prosecution of
this application.

5. The remarks, on page 4, lines 5-7, suggests that "neither the nature of the problem to be
solved, the teachings of the prior art, nor the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill provides
sufficient suggestion or motivation to combine the references". This is not correct.

Here the prior art does explicitly provide the motivation for the combination of the
rejection. Moslehi, for example, recognizes the problem: "Deviations from specified target
tolerances in excess of only a few percentage points may result in defective and rejected
semiconductor chips" [column 1, lines 37-39] and "Semiconductor device manufacturers can
only discard rejected semiconductor chips, thus resulting in undesirable production process waste
and increased device manufacturing costs" [column 1 , lines 40-43]. Moslehi also teaches the
general claimed solution: "If it is possible, however, to closely monitor various process and
wafer parameters in situ during or immediately after processing each individual wafer,
equipment and process inputs may be properly adjusted to reduce process parameter spread"
[column 1, line 43-47]; see also many other statement in that reference disclosing the use of in
situ measurement for process control, some of which are enumerated above. This is the solution
of the instant invention as claimed, to use in situ measurements for process control (or
"regulation") Thus the teachings in the cited art, in at least the Moslehi reference, clearly do
provide sufficient suggestion or motivation for the combination.

Application/Control Number: 09/893,803
Art Unit: 2877

Page 8

6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Richard A Rosenberger whose telephone number is (571) 272-
2428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday during the hours of
8:00-4:30.

If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Gregory J. Toatley, Jr. can be reached on (571) 272-2800 ext. 77. The fax phone
number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306.

Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent
Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications
may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished
applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR
system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).

R. A. Rosenberger
29 June 2005.